> SIGCHLD is not defined for plan 9, except in ape. that's what i > would call ape-specific.
This is degenerating into politics (or religion, same thing) quite unnecessarily. In my opinion, Go is a "better" APE (I'm convinced that Rob agrees with me :-). The way I see it and the reason I like Go a lot, is that it seems to aim to great portability across different platforms. In my particular dream I saw myself developing in the comfort of Plan 9 for the Windows environment (when that still mattered) and today for the mobile phone and various tablets (somebody keeps moving the goal posts, but we'll catch them eventually). In this respect, Go is perhaps closer to Posix than to APE, and then maybe not: these are intentionally closely coupled. Where SIGCLD/SIGCHLD (evidently Posix didn't quite get this one nailed down) is concerned, APE and Go need to provide the same service and therefore need to duplicate the implementation. If, as cinap suggests, there is no support in the kernel for it and it cannot be implemented purely in user user space, then it makes sense to do the job once, in the kernel and I'd like to leave it to those who are familiar with such things to determine what is actually necessary. But I think it is clear that Go and APE can retain their separation, migrating Go to APE makes no sense at all. ++L
